Showing posts with label Jeremy Faison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremy Faison. Show all posts

Sunday, December 11, 2016

GOP lawmakers Steve Dickerson and Jeremy Faison to introduce medical marijuanna bill

by Jake Lowary, The Tennessean -    Medical marijuana will again become a topic of discussion and legislation during the 2017 legislative session.

An announcement from the House Republican Caucus on Friday said an official announcement will come next week from state Rep. Jeremy Faison, R-Cosby, and Sen. Steve Dickerson, R-Nashville, who are planning to introduce legislation about medical marijuana. (keep reading)

My Comment: I fully support the effort to legalize medical marijuana and also think we should legalized or at least decriminalize recreational marijuana.  Legalizing medical marijuana is a reasonable proposal even it one opposes pot use for fun.  Marijuana has proven successful in treating nausea as a side effect of Chemo cancer treatment, in the relieve of pain, treatment of seizures, treatment of depression  and other conditions. I am proud of Jeremy Faison, and Nashville's Senator Steve Dickerson for leading this effort.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Monday, March 03, 2014

Tennessee Firearms Association bullies go after legislators who would not vote for an unconstitutional bill.

The gun-nut bullies at the Tennessee Firearms Association are much more concerned with expanding gun rights than supporting the Constitution.  This year, there was a proposed bill that would modify the "guns-in-trunks" bill passed last year. The bill would change the term
"privately owned vehicle" to "motor vehicle" so that if you were driving your spouses vehicle or a rental vehicle you would still be covered by the protections in the "guns in trunks" bill.

Representative Mark Pody proposed an amendment to the bill that would do more than that. His amendment did several things. It did clarify that the right to carry a gun onto the property of another did not apply to  single-family homes not used as a business. It clarified that a owner of a property could still prohibit guns on his property in certain narrow cases; if he gave a specific person written notice not to carry guns onto his property and the person acknowledged that notice in writing.  

The Pody amendment gave greater protection to gun owners who carry a gun onto their employers property than in the current bill. The amendment prohibited an employer from firing a person for carrying a gun onto his property or bringing criminal charges against a person for bringing a gun onto his property.  And, it said the employee subject to "adverse action" could sue his employer for civil damages.

I think this was a bad amendment. I think that just as restaurants may post a "no guns" sign and that applies to everyone entering the establishment, an employer should be able to decide if he wants guns on his property or not. However, what is wrong with this amendment is something greater than the merits of the amendment; it is that is unconstitutional. Tennessee's Constitution says the body of a bill can not be broader than the caption of a bill. This is one way in which I think the Tennessee Constitution is superior the Federal constitution If you have observed Congress in action, a bill on on one topic may have a provision appropriating money for something totally unrelated and the unrelated item hitches a ride on a popular bill.  That is often the way deals are made to get votes to pass bad bills. Bills get decorated like Christmas trees. You can't to that in Tennessee. So, Pody's bill was illegal and it did not pass.

The fact that Pody's bill was broader than the caption and therefore unconstitutional did not keep the TFA from pressuring Representatives to support it. I have not yet seen the fundraiser from TFA, but according to Representative Jeremy Faison, the TFA has now released a letter condemning those who voted against the Pody amendment and requesting money to use to defeat them.

See the below Facebook post from Representative Faison and the letter from Representative Pody where he says his amendment was not proper. The fact that even the sponsor of the amendment says it was not a proper amendment, does not keep the TFA from going after those who would not vote for it. The Tennessee Firearms Association has no shame.

This from Representative Jerremy Faison: 

Last week the TFA (Tennessee Firearms Association) released a letter condemning my vote and a multitude of other pro gun legislators vote on a specific amendment. John Harris requested money to be able to defeat me and many other legislators that are 100% committed to the Constitution. The sponsor of the amendment, Mark Pody has come forward and admitted that his 5 page amendment to a 1 paragraph bill was not the correct way to do it. Further more, his amendment was not constitutional. I vote first and foremost for the Constitution. If you have any questions, on my support of the 2nd amendment, please check my record or feel free to call me.

 To read the bill and the Pody amendment, follow this link.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Guns-in-trunks-in-parking-lots heads to the Governor

NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The House has voted to send to the governor's desk a bill to allow the state's nearly 400,000 handgun carry permit holders to store firearms in their vehicles no matter where they are parked.
 Despite the hysteria about this bill, it is worth noting that it really doesn't do much. As explained in this Channel 5 report, "Supporters stress that the measure would not stop employers from banning weapons on their property but would simply remove their ability to call for criminal charges against violators."  Also, "Republican Rep. Jeremy Faison of Cosby said his bill would also not apply to areas like airports, railroads or secure facilities governed by federal law."

The Governor should sign this bill and put this issue to rest. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Is this what guns-in-trunks means? If so, it is much to do about nothing.

I have carefully followed the Safe Commute Act, generally refereed to as the "guns in trunks bill," and I thought I understood it to force an employer to allow an employee with a hand gun carry permit to leave a gun locked in his car at his place of employment. I have editorialized on the bill based on that assumption. (See Thoughts about guns-in-trunks and property rights)

I was surprised to read the following in today's Tennessean

...a staff attorney told committee members that, just as employers can bar drinking-age workers from consuming alcohol on the job, they will be able to fire workers who flout no-gun policies.
The bill, however, would change state law so that those workers could no longer be arrested. (link)
If that is all it does, then it is really no big deal. This bill is a very minor change. If this is all it does it does not infringe on the property rights of employers at all. It this is all it does it is pretty much meaningless. The controversy over this bill is much to do about nothing.

Read it. It looks like the way the Tennessean reported it is correct. The bill says the gun permit holder may store his gun in his vehicle at his place of employment. It does not say the employer can not prohibit the employee from doing so.  

Below is the text of the bill: 
SENATE BILL 142 By Ramsey
HOUSE BILL 118 By Faison
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, relative to handgun carry permits.
WHEREAS, in 1996, Tennesseans were first given the opportunity to apply for and, if
meeting the qualifications, be issued a permit to carry a handgun in public; and
WHEREAS, to apply for a permit a person must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age,
a resident of Tennessee and a U.S. citizen or permanent lawful resident; and
WHEREAS, the applicant must, under oath in the application, affirm that he or she has
not been convicted of a criminal offense or otherwise occupy a status that would make
possession of a firearm prohibited by federal law; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the application, the applicant must provide two (2) full sets of
the applicant’s fingerprints for the purpose of permitting both the Tennessee bureau of
investigation and federal bureau of investigation to conduct a criminal history record check on the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is also required to submit proof of the successful completion of a department approved handgun safety course, which is required to include both classroom hours and firing range hours, to ensure the applicant knows how to safely handle a firearm and basic Tennessee law with respect to where firearms can and cannot be carried; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the application, the applicant is required to present
photo identification and a nonrefundable one hundred fifteen dollar ($115) application fee to the department; and
WHEREAS, an applicant meeting all the requirements stated above is entitled to be
issued a Tennessee handgun permit within ninety (90) days of the department receiving the application; and
WHEREAS, even though obtaining a handgun carry permit is neither quick nor easy in
Tennessee, over 40,600 law-abiding citizens successfully completed the requirements and received a permit during 1997, the first full year of operation; and
WHEREAS, the number of handgun carry permits issued to concerned citizens who
want to responsibly and legally protect themselves and their family, both at home and on their way to and from work, has risen each of the fifteen years the permit has been available in this state to the more than 371,800 Tennesseans who hold handgun carry permits in 2012; now, therefore,
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by
adding the following as a new section thereto:
39-17-1313.
(a) Notwithstanding §§ 39-17-1309, 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, unless
expressly prohibited by federal law, the holder of a valid handgun carry permit
recognized in Tennessee may transport and store a firearm or firearm
ammunition in the permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle, as defined in §
55-1-103, while on or utilizing any public or private parking area if:
(1) The permit holder’s vehicle is parked in a location where it is
permitted to be; and
(2) The firearm or ammunition being transported or stored in the
vehicle:
(A) Is kept from ordinary observation if the permit holder is
in the motor vehicle; or
(B) Is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the
trunk, glove box, or interior of the person’s privately owned motor
vehicle or a container securely affixed to such vehicle if the permit
holder is not in the vehicle.
(b) No business entity, public or private employer, or the owner,
manager, or legal possessor of the property shall be held liable in any civil action
for damages, injuries or death resulting from or arising out of another’s actions
involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored in accordance with
subsection (a) unless the business entity, public or private employer, or the
owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property commits an offense involving
the use of the stored firearm or ammunition or intentionally solicits or procures
the conduct resulting in the damage, injury or death. Nor shall a business entity,
public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the
property be responsible for the theft of a firearm or ammunition stored in
accordance with subsection (a).
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Parking area” means any property provided by a business
entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal
possessor of the property for the purpose of permitting its invitees,
customers, clients or employees to park privately-owned motor vehicles;
and
(2) “Parking area” does not include the grounds or property of a
owner-occupied, single-family detached residence, or a tenant-occupied
single-family detached residence.
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1359 is amended by deleting
from the first sentence of subsection (a) the language, “An individual, corporation” and
substituting instead the language “Except as provided in § 39-17-1313, an individual,
corporation”.
SECTION 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2013, the public welfare requiring it

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories